Talk:Spell/@comment-37647488-20181129022636/@comment-1333593-20181129211849
Pardon my bluntness, but I feel the need to point out that based on your activity here so far, you wouldn't recognize respect if it hit you on the face. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you relaying your concerns to us in your own way. Not that the Special pages don't do this well enough, but most of us prefer a degree of redundancy here. This is something you may have picked up if you were actually interested about this community. If it's possible to thoroughly examine a topic by repeating something already written down elsewhere, than saving the reader that click is actually a better solution than a link in my opinion (along with those that created most of this wiki). In fact, wording it differently (as opposed to transcluding it from elsewhere) can make the article even better! Of course, the link should still be there, in case further explanation is called for. I do have one question. Is it the search function you're trying to improve with all the redirects? Because personally, I hate it when I go to a wiki looking for some information, only to spend an hour clicking through the links before I realize that what I'm looking for is simply not there. A red link is a thousand times more preferable. Sure, I may have picked up a ton of "useful", maybe even interesting information, but ultimately, I will leave disappointed. The red link tells me that at least someone is aware that an explanation would be good to have, it's just that noone has gotten around to writing it yet. It's honest and straightforward. Take Gold for example. The Tax Rate article offers precious little in the way of what Gold is, or where to get it from (apart from Taxes), much less how to maximize it. My hastily written few-sentence article rectifies the first two of those shortcomings. And I wouldn't even call it a scribble, and am rather unhappy with having had to resort to creating it. However, it's still preferable to your "solution". Yet, it doesn't look like something you couldn't have done yourself if you were willing to put some time and effort into it. If I want it to become a quality article however, I will still have to rewrite it, the same way I have to do with almost everything created by undedicated editors, like myself in this case. For the record, the majority of the "broken links" to Gold (or Mana) come from the infoicon templates, and are not actual red links on the pages. That is, removing the link from the template could have worked just as well as a temporary solution. The articles may not even be necessary in the first place. That is likely the case with this one, too. "Spell" might not require an explanation for the same reason that "soldier", "monster", or "explanation" doesn't. Or should, in your opinion, these words (and all others in this and every other language) have their separate articles on every single wiki? And by that token, what is a "generic Spell article"? What would "be expected" of it? What should it explain to make sure that "the reader leaves satisfied"? These are all questions that I think are worth considering before creating an article or redirect. And if there is no easy or straightforward answer, maybe a discussion is in order before action is taken to "rectify" an "issue" that may turn out to be the result of a simple difference in perception.